Reducing LG Funding (I'm opposed)

De asked:
Do you have a position on this—reducing funding?  Good idea?  Bad idea? 
What do you think about the chapters not getting any addition funding from the latest increase in membership dues?

And here's my answer:
I have my hands on more data than most AMC members regarding LG funding, and I see nothing that indicates wisdom in reducing funding to Groups.


I can think of ways that Groups might shave some off of their expenses, but I would expect that any such saving would be used to improve other member services. Unless National begins to provide more on-the-ground service to members (which is not really possible), I don't see how cutting funding to LGs would benefit Mensa as a whole.


As for not getting any funding from this latest dues increase, keep in mind that dues rates and LG funding rates were decoupled years ago—when the traditional 1/6 of dues was found to be an inadequate amount for Groups to do what they need to do. Why no motion to increase funding to Groups this past year? I know I informally floated the idea back in August (gotta think that far ahead in the budget cycle) and it didn't gain any traction among the other Finance Committee members. No other AMC members crafted and put forth motions to raise LG funding, so it didn't happen. 


There is a task force working on the funding issue; I'm chairing it. I will have a report done in time for the July meeting, and well ahead of time for the next budget cycle. My goal is, once again, to figure out how much groups need in order to serve their members well and how to fairly allocate the right amount of money for those services.


One way that I differ from other AMC members is that I am very opposed to looking at Groups' bank balances as a determining factor in how much funding they need. We know all too well by now, bank balances do not tell the whole picture. That a group has a large lump in the bank in March means little... perhaps they haven't finished their RG books yet. Perhaps they have a trust fund with restrictions on use. Perhaps it's a scholarship fund. Perhaps they have some monster bills outstanding. Perhaps they're saving up for a color printer.


And what you didn't ask, but are thinking, I suspect:
Now that Groups are sending newsletters electronically, will you assume they don't need as much money and subsequently cut the funding?


I seriously doubt it. All the research shows that members want social opportunities and intellectual stimulation. As long as Groups are forced to spend most of their income on newsletters, they can't do much for the social and intellectual stimulation services the members really want. Funding to Groups is supposed to be for providing the services members want, and letting those that wish to go electronic do so easily will only help them improve their other important member services.


Groups still need that money—but for other things.